Snapped (2005 Video) User Reviews

High technical quality, dreadful script

[travis-j-rodgers · 4/10 · 19 December 2005]

This film has a nice look to it, especially for an indie and seemingly low budget film. The sound is good as well. I was quite impressed by both. Too often, indies/low budgets (not that they're necessarily the same) have problems technically that obscure the gems of the film. In Snapped's case, much the opposite is true.

While the acting isn't overall terrible (notably the two female leads...who seemed capable of acting on some level), no one is more than competent. The dialogue was terrible, unrealistic. Several times, I wondered why the director hadn't ordered more takes. Some things just came off as too amateurish.

Finally, a problem that plagues many low budget films was present. Without getting into the specifics, there are at least two physical altercations that are basically implausible to the point of stupidity. There are other scenes where the shift in tone between interacting characters is so sudden and unmotivated as to be wholly unbelievable.

Not the worst film out there by any stretch of the imagination and I'd love to see what the technical people from this film could do with a real script and actors, but hardly worth a look.

Not too bad

[TdSmth5 · 4/10 · 26 July 2006]

Most comments here are somewhat harsh. This is obviously not an award contending movie with an A-list cast. It's a very low budget thriller and for that standard it's quite good. The female cast is attractive and does a good job, especially the lead, Tiffany Amber Knight. Among the male cast Joe Costa, as the villain does a good job. Some of the other cast aren't as good. While Hollywood productions go for big visuals and little story, this movie, like most low budget films, make up for the lack of explosions and flashiness with a solid and intriguing script with several surprising twists. The story has been described in other commentaries so I won't repeat it here. There is some interesting sexual tension between the two main female characters, which unfortunately doesn't ever come to fruition. The gore effects are good, but this isn't an all out horror gore flick. The movie does look very good I must say. The coloring is perfect, not too flat, not too rich. The sound is good. So technically this crew did a fine job. The things I didn't like were perhaps the pace, at times things get slow and even though the movie is short, maybe a little bit more could action and outside filming could have helped. The main disappointment was the lack of nudity. The movie starts out great, right at the opening credits there's some nudity, but that's almost all there is. The opening credits are more flashy than the rest of the film and was clearly filmed at another time and perhaps even by someone else as there is no indication that the same cast was used.

Serial killer? technically this is a killing spree!

[burtie16 · 4/10 · 17 June 2005]

A story about Amy (Tiffant Knight) a rookie photographer who is willing to go any lengths to get her perfect shot.

She's hacked off with her junkie boyfriend, pervie landlord, her friend… err… actually just about everybody. She sets about changing all this, and BOY, do she do it well! The acting from a couple of the actors (not Tiffany) isn't great but they obviously didn't have a very big budget for this. But the amount violence more than makes up for that. Overall its not bad. watchable. Tiffany Knight is a sexy psychopath.

This Isn't widely available (in UK, dunno about US) so you'll have to dig deep to find it.

Atrocious...

[cr498520 · 1/10 · 10 August 2005]

Where to start? The initial premise is clever enough-a girl who is hired to make, and kill for, art-but it is all downhill from there. The acting is foul, replete with over exaggerated eye-rolls and wooden monotones (to be fair, the lead actress isn't too bad), the camera work is worthy of Dad patrolling the camcorder for a backyard BBQ and the plot is both indecipherable and utterly predictable at the same time. This would all be fine if Sanpped were punctuated by some measure of camp value which made it one of those movies that are so bad that they're fun to watch. But no luck here-the dialogue is deadly boring, not howlingly bad, the death scenes, clichéd and tame, not farcically bloody and over the top. Even by the standards of low budget horror movies, this is utter dreck.

a porn film without the sex

[mags22 · 1/10 · 8 June 2005]

The character Amy (could not have been performed any worse by a house plant) is commissioned to do a series of photos for a new exhibit and must show "pathos"; what results is more aptly described as pathetic. Imagine asking your kids aged 8 - 10 to come up with a script and they'll do better than this! There is absolutely no motivation for her to become a serial killer but hey motivation is most assuredly NOT a prerequisite for this flick! This movie is as well scripted and acted as your average porn flick... so basically it's a porn flick without the sex... whose brother/sister/boyfriend/girlfriend made this flick? I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to see this unless they were directly related to the makers or the actors. This is 1 hour 23 minutes and 23 seconds of my life that I will never get back! PURE KA KA !

oh dear lord.....

[James_Storm34 · 1/10 · 16 June 2005]

Well this film is definitely an experience I will give it that, yes definitely an experience, probably the worst experience of my life!!! Where to start on this pile of dump? OK the film begins and it becomes blatantly obvious that not a single person in this thing has had an acting lesson in their lives, this is terrible and possibly the worst film I have seen, and believe me I have seen plenty of garbage and this is up there with the best of them. It makes Nikos the Impaler look like a damn Oscar winner. Also apparent in this film is that the director had absolutely no idea what he was doing and was probably smacked up off his tits when he made it.

The way a low budget film usually works is usually that its so bad that its actually good, the acting is bad, the story is bad but its made and made so badly its entertaining. Snapped on the other hand is made badly, so badly yet it tries to be serious and in this department fails on every level. If your gonna try and make a serious film with a serious story and pull it off at least hire some people that can seriously act, otherwise get the hell away from the idea. Honestly it would of been more enjoyable spending an hour and 20 minutes getting booted in the knackers by a donkey.

Anyone who thinks of watching this, I beg you to just think it over properly and I advise you against it strongly. The film should come with a do not operate heavy machinery while watching this warning. However if you do watch this and make it all the way through like I did then you are seriously hardcore. I had to suffer this rectal waste of a production, you shouldn't.... stay away!

I give this film a... GIANT STEAMING PILE OF CRAP/10

I can't believe I thought this was a real movie, Not the awesome Michael Biehn from Terminator

[kielcorwin · 1/10 · 19 June 2005]

I got this thinking it was a movie but I was wrong. Someone borrowed their moms video camera and taped their friends running around. I want to go into detail about everything thats bad about this but I would be wasting my time. I have to admit the first 30 seconds or so had me believing this was a movie, but two minutes later I wasn't sure if they were joking or not when a fat goth chick starts kicking some guy for gambling debts(they're not joking, she's supposed to be tough). I feel stupid for not seeing it sooner, this is just a horrible attempt at making a movie. I looked up this movie on IMDb and saw "Michael Bien" and thought it was the bad-ass guy from "The Terminator" but thats "Michael Biehn", this movie has some fat guy instead. Bad "acting" is of course the most obvious issue but is't not even the pretend actors fault, the most talented actors couldn't make this stuff believable. Plot holes and no sense. It's not even good in a bad way, Hulk Hogan movies are more entertaining. I'm a fan of independent movies but this sucks, it tries to be a formulaic Hollywood thriller and is everything a independent movie should not be. This movie owes everyone who sees it an apology.

Inspiring to Young Filmmakers

[Quentin-12 · 15 July 2005]

It's inspiring in the way that when you see something like this you can't help but smile to yourself thinking, if something THIS bad gets made then I might just have a future.

I pride myself in trying to see some good in every film I watch, however this is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen. The acting is wooden and two-dimensional at best. The characters are all stereotypes. The plot feels recycled, predictable, and unmotivated. There's no point to any of this. It's shot like it's a student film with no real motivation or idea as to what they want to evoke as far as emotions go in their cinematography.

This film made no attempt to make me FEEL anything, not happy or sad, not even frightened or anxious. THAT is what the point of cinema is, to experience something. And to quote one of the characters, "This wasn't an experience."

Total crap.

[poolandrews · 1/10 · 3 April 2006]

Snapped starts as would be photographer Amy McCanic (Tiffany Amber Knight) is commissioned by a shadowy figure known as Astrum (Joe Costa) to create an exhibition for an art show, Amy is told in no uncertain terms that if she succeeds she will be set for life but if she fails & turns in a crap exhibit her career as a photographer will be over, simple as that. Amy takes inspiration from the current exhibits which depict death, suicide & murder. Amy's day then takes a turn for the worse, she discovers that her no good drug using boyfriend Trevor (co-associate producer Michael Bien) is in another world, they are about to be evicted from their apartment, she gets ripped off by the apartment manager, when Trevor rejoins the land of the living he steals all of Amy's money to buy more drugs & Amy has just had it really. Starting with the fat ugly apartment manager who ripped her off Amy goes on a killing spree as she discovers that the best way to photograph death is to first create it herself! Those around Amy begin to drop like flies as anyone, anywhere at anytime becomes a potential victim but Astrum doesn't care as long as the exhibit is ready but who is Astrum working for & what is they're reasons behind what is happening...

This Canandian American co-production was directed by Jeff Prosserman & Julian Van Mil who were also both producers on the thing, personally I found very little to enjoy in Snapped. The script by Steve Abbott has a few problems, first it's incredibly slow & boring which kills it dead in the water. The character's are some of the most unlikable I've ever had the misfortune to watch, most (not all) films need a likable central character that you can relate to, root for & get behind but such a character is sorely lacking in Snapped. I found Amy one of the most annoying & downright unpleasant leading character's in any film I've seen recently, I hated everything about her which made it impossible for me to care about anything happening to her, Trevor was a lowlife thieving junkie, the apartment manager was a fat ugly lowlife thieving pervert & Astrum didn't seem bothered by the fact Amy was murdering people, when you think about it wouldn't those photo's incriminate Amy? Surely even she wasn't that stupid as to hand them over so they could be put on display to the ENTIRE WORLD when they clearly showed murdered people, people who I would imagine would eventually be reported missing or they're remains found somewhere. Listen Amy it's no good having lots of money if your stuck behind bars for the rest of your life, is it? The whole story is a nonsense, it takes itself 100% seriously (big mistake) & there are just so many annoying things about it that I pretty much hated every minute of it. By the way did I mention that the so-called 'twist' ending was crap & again made little sense? I didn't, oh well it is & it doesn't.

Directors Prosserman & Van Mil don't do anything other low budget filmmakers haven't, I don't think Snapped looks particularly stylish or original & it looks more like a bland TV film. Forget about any atmosphere or scares as there aren't any. There are a few instances of gore, some guts, some spraying blood, a slit throat, hammer hits to the head & a couple of stabbings although it's far from the goriest film ever.

Going straight-to-video technically Snapped is alright considering the budget must have been small to say the least, it's competent I'll give it that. The acting was poor, Amy really annoyed & I just didn't like her one bit & frankly I didn't feel any differently about anyone else either which made it an absolute chore to sit through.

Snapped is crap, it has an intriguing central premise although when you think about it logically it makes no sense & falls flat on it's face. It's slow, the character's are awful, the kills are lame & nothing really worked for me, the most entertaining thing about Snapped is that on the IMDb main page for it in the 'Plot Summary' section they list Amy Mechanic (maybe she's Bob the Builder's sister...) instead of Amy McCanic! For masochists & insomniacs only, one to avoid.

Raw Effluence

[druquzdog · 1/10 · 21 June 2005]

Aside from two insane reviews posted here that are transparently obvious as the work of someone involved with the movie or a sick prankster, this waste of time has been universally condemned by IMDb users. I can only heap another shovel of manure upon it, as it is possibly the worst thing I've ever sat through. Not bad in a good way either, bad in a very bad way. Total trash, with NO redeeming features.

Unfortunately, it was through reading one of the two positive reviews on this board that led me to watch this in the first place. I've since signed up as a member, so I can see the weight of the balance in reviews damns this rubbish rightly to hell.

I move that the studio/prank reviews be stricken from the record so that nobody else has to sit through what I just watched on the basis of deranged lies. If you were thinking of whiling away 80mins, even if you have nothing better to do than grind pepper in your eyes, take the pepper option.

No doubt tax dollars went into this utter failure of a movie

[kyoung-4 · 1/10 · 3 February 2007]

The acting was worse than any porn movie out there. What could the people who made this have been thinking? It was as if they were trying to make a cult film and failed dismally. Characters were one dimensional, completely unbelievable and stilted. The main character's actions were utterly unfathomable - why she would do the things she does is never explained.

Simply put - dismally acted, pathetically directed, abysmally written. If I could possibly give this a zero I would have.

Why did I watch it to the end? I simply find it hard to believe that anything could be this bad and kept hoping for some redeeming quality. It was kind of like watching a 20 car pile up - you can't look away because it's so shockingly horrifying.

Don't waste any time or money on this disaster. All who had something to do with this should be banned from ever working again.

go and rent it if u cant buy

[eminkarakus · 9/10 · 6 June 2005]

A photographer finds herself drawn into a cycle of death and pictures in the horror film SNAPPED. A gallery owner commissions a series of unusual works from young photographer Amy: to collect images of the recently deceased. The job seems impossible, until a series of murders seem to literally fall into her lap, committed for the sole purpose of allowing her to continue with the assignment. As she nears completion, bodies continue to drop, and she slowly starts being driven mad by the death and dismemberment around her. Will she ultimately go to the authorities, or justify the murders by collecting on her valuable job? SNAPPED is a horror film that looks at the fine line separated art and life (and the lack of it!).

Unrelenting, Uncompromising, Unforgettable????

[TorsdagCa · 1/10 · 12 June 2005]

I am in no way attempting to troll here, but in the spirit of showing an opposing view, I must say that this movie, in no way, is any of the following: Unrelenting, Uncompromising nor Unforgettable." One of the problems with a movie that takes itself oh-so-seriously is the fact that the audience can too plainly see that fact. "Snapped," from the opening scenes up to the very end, just seemed to shout "Hey, this is a SERIOUS movie. Arty stuff here, dontcha know... You'd better appreciate it." Hey, let the audience think for themselves, OK? While this movie was not bad, it was not altogether good either. Just because a film looks polished doesn't mean that it's a good movie (unfortunately, U.S. audiences are prone to falling for Style over Substance....). The best looking movie in the world will still suffer if it is peopled with actors/actresses who can't act and/or not having a story worth telling or told in a way that makes it worth watching (i.e. no pretentious dialogue.. who speaks like this???).

Of course, it the filmmakers are just trying to make a buck...... well, never mind this post!

Bottom Line: In my opinion (and yes, we all have one), this was not "an experience!" It was merely a movie that tried too hard to come across as "an art film." No pun intended...

When it looks like a pornflick, talks like a pornflick but doesn't have any porn in it, it's still a pornflick

[CineCritic2517 · 11 July 2007]

wow, an honest horrible movie! ..one you can comfortably turn off after 2 minutes with a smile for it never tries to hide its minus zero production-value.

Atrocious acting, a screenplay from a high-school writing-contest and a plot straight out the Lazy Book of Rehashed and Done to Death Plotpoints. Do movies get any worse? They do, but only slightly...

Great fun with a couple of brews, some grass and a bored set of friends and a brilliant motivation to change the evening for the better and simply get out of the house to..take out the trash? ..just about anything is better than to sit through this one.

-0/10

So not good... It's good

[andrewbaker2603 · 9/10 · 16 August 2009]

If you are looking for some serious thriller sort of thing then I recommend Silence of the Lambs. If you are looking for a laugh for ninety minutes, then look no further. Production values are possibly not the highest, not an epic film as even the blood had been watered down into a pink colour. Filmed from the cast's apartments and wearing outfits that were two sizes two small, this film goes from strength to strength throughout. Wish only my life was as interesting as this artist's (fortunately being at art College I have not come across anyone that kills for their art) WARNING: MAY NEED ALCOHOL TO MAKE MORE ENJOYABLE. Better than any Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller film that I have seen lately.

Unrelenting, Uncompromising, Unforgettable

[bondjamesbond69 · 10/10 · 8 June 2005]

Snapped is a rare film that comes about once a decade. A gripping tale of art, murder, love, and betrayal. Heavy with post-modern social commentary, Snapped is a film on a level other contemporary horror films cannot even comprehend. Although the cast is relatively unknown, the acting is top notch. Tiffany Knight delivers a heart stopping performance as the sexy, yet deadly Amy. Micheal Bien, Joe Costa and Pete Soltesz are excellent in their supporting roles and essential to creating the unpredictable, dark and moody atmosphere of Snapped. Newcomer directors Jeff Prosserman and Julian Van Mill prove themselves masters of the camera, as each shot, each angle and each scene draws the viewer deeper and deeper into Amy's insanity and the human soul.

I don't want to over-hype it so I'll leave it at this; Snapped is Innovative storytelling matched with cunning direction and gut-wretching performances that will leave you weeping.

This is not just a movie, not just a film, this is an experience. Snapped is a haunting piece of modern art that will have you questioning existence and the universe by the time the credits roll.